The data presented on the role of the largest landlord estates in the struggle for land in Russia must be supplemented in one respect. A characteristic feature of the agrarian programs of our bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie is the muddying of the question with considerations about "norms" concerning which class is the most powerful opponent of the peasantry, which landholdings constitute the main mass of the fund subject to expropriation. Both the Cadets and the Trudoviks speak predominantly about how much land is required for the peasants according to one or another "norm," — instead of discussing the far more concrete and vital matter: how much land exists that can be expropriated. The first formulation of the question obscures the class struggle, conceals the essence of the matter with an empty pretense to a "state" point of view. The second formulation shifts the entire center of gravity of the question to class struggle, to the class interests of a particular stratum of landowners, one most represented by serf-owning tendencies.

We shall dwell on this question of "norms" elsewhere. Here we shall note one "fortunate" exception among the Trudoviks and one typically Cadet writer.

In the Second Duma, the People's Socialist Delarov touched upon the question of what percentage of landowners would be affected by expropriation (47th session, May 26, 1907). The speaker spoke precisely about expropriation (compulsory), not raising the question of confiscation, and apparently accepted the very same expropriation norm that I hypothetically took in my table, namely: 500 desyatins. Unfortunately, in the stenographic records of the II Duma, the corresponding passage of Delarov's speech (p. 1217) is distorted, — either Mr. Delarov made an error himself. The record states that compulsory expropriation would affect 32% of private landholdings and 96% of all their land area, — while the remaining, so to speak, 68% of landowners have only 4% of private land property. In fact, instead of 32%, it should be 3.7%, since 27,833 landowners out of 752,881 constitute 3.7%, and their land comprises 62 million out of 85.8 million desyatins, i.e., 72.3%. It remains unknown whether Mr. Delarov misspoke or took incorrect figures. In any case, he alone, if we are not mistaken, among the numerous Duma speakers, approached the question of what the struggle is about in the most direct, concrete sense.

The Cadet writer, whose "works" cannot go unmentioned in the exposition of this question, — Mr. S. Prokopovich. True, he is, properly speaking, "unsigned," appearing — like most writers of the bourgeois newspaper "Tovarishch" — at one moment as a Cadet, at another as a Menshevik social-democrat. He is a typical representative of that small group of consistent Bernsteinists among Russian bourgeois intellectsia, which waivers between Cad. and S-D., does not (for the most part) belong to any party, and systematically strikes in the liberal press a note somewhat to the right of Plekhanov. Mr. Prokopovich must be noted here because he was among the first to publish figures from the land-ownership statistics of 1905, and in doing so, he actually took his stand on the basis of the Cadet agrarian reform. In two articles in the newspaper "Tovarishch" (1907, No. 214 of March 13 and No. 238 of April 10), Mr. Prokopovich polemicizes with the compiler of official statistics, General Zolotarev, who contends that the government is quite capable of managing land reform without any compulsory expropriation whatsoever, and that 5 desyatins per farmstead is entirely sufficient for a peasant to conduct his farm! Mr. Prokopovich is more liberal: he takes 8 desyatins per farmstead. He makes a reservation — not once, but repeatedly — that such provision is "entirely insufficient," that such a calculation is "the most modest," and so on, but all the same, in determining the "extent of land need" (the title of the first of Mr. Prokopovich's aforementioned articles), he takes precisely this figure. He explains that he takes it "to avoid unnecessary disputes"… presumably, "unnecessary disputes" with Messrs. Zolotarevs? Calculating in this way the number of "obviously land-poor" peasant farmsteads as half of the total number, Mr. Prokopovich correctly calculates that to supplement them up to 8 desyatins requires 18.6 million desyatins, and since the government supposedly has a fund of only 9 million desyatins, then — "one cannot do without compulsory expropriation."

Both through his calculations and through his reasoning, Mr. Menshevik-leaning Cadet or Cadet-leaning Menshevik excellently expressed the spirit and meaning of the liberal agrarian program. The question properly concerning serf-owning latifundia and latifundia in general is completely glossed over. Mr. Prokopovich presented data only on all private landholding above 50 desyatins. Thus, that which is the real subject of the struggle turned out to be obscured. The class interests of a handful — literally a handful — of landlords are veiled. Instead of their exposure, we are presented with a "state point of view": "one cannot do without" state lands. If it were possible to do without them, then Mr. Prokopovich — as it follows from his reasoning — would have nothing against serf-owning latifundia…

The size of the peasant allotment (8 desyatins) is taken as starvation rations. The size of "compulsory expropriation" from the landlords is taken as trifling (18 – 9 = 9 million desyatins out of 62 million above 500 desyatins!). To carry out such "compulsory expropriation," it would be necessary for the landlords to compel the peasants, — as happened in 1861!{82}

Willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, but Mr. Prokopovich truly expressed the landlord essence of the Cadet agrarian program. The Cadets are merely cautious and cunning: they prefer to remain completely silent about how much land they are inclined to expropriate from the landlords.